Our View: The price of a free lunch

When Uncle Sam wants to buy our city's kids a nutritious lunch, it's tough to say no. Given the high rates of poverty in our city and the public interest of helping children and families, it probably makes sense to move forward with it. But we ought to do so with a full understanding as to why the offer is being made and exactly what it costs us in increased reliance on the kindness of government.

Fall River Public Schools may become America’s latest “high needs” school system to take up the federal government on its offer for a universal free school lunch program. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education says the Community Eligibility Provision of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 “allows for a healthier student body and a healthier school meal budget.”

Who wouldn’t want to take a bite of that apple?

Under the existing National School Lunch Program, as long as income-eligible families fill out the proper paperwork, qualifying students can participate in the free-and-reduced cost lunch programs that have long been available to help feed needy students. Already, 70 percent of Fall River students are taking advantage of the existing free lunch program, and another 7 percent are getting the reduced-price lunch. And, school officials believe still more of the city’s students would qualify for free or reduced price lunch if every eligible family filled out the paperwork.

There are many good reasons to support a universal free lunch program for all students, regardless of age or income. Healthy, well-fed kids perform better in class. School officials say that joining the universal lunch program would prevent an anticipated hike in school lunch prices, increase the number of kids getting school lunch and save families money.

Eliminating income qualifications would remove the stigma attached to free and reduced-price lunches, and administrative expenses associated with the current program would be reduced, in large part through the elimination of paperwork. As well, the program would provide a rare break for working families who may not qualify for other assistance.

But it’s not all up side. Fall River qualifies for the universal program because of the high poverty level in our community. And no matter how you slice it, signing on to this program would increase our dependency on government subsidies at a time when the rally cry is toward greater autonomy.

According to school officials, the federal government would reimburse the meals at $2.93 each. Buying lunch for each of Fall River’s 10,500 students would cost the government $30,765 per day. During the course of a 180-day school year, the program in Fall River alone would cost about $5.5 million.

When Uncle Sam wants to buy our city’s kids a nutritious lunch, it’s tough to say no. Given the high rates of poverty in our city and the public interest of helping children and families, it probably makes sense to move forward with it. But we ought to do so with a full understanding as to why the offer is being made and exactly what it costs us in increased reliance on the kindness of government.